Transcript

Steven Potter: What are your thoughts on the fall for Republicans and the potential to flip the majority for Democrats in the Assembly? Scott Walker: Well, I think it's certainly a warning sign — not insurmountable — but historically, you know, when Barack Obama was in, we had a whole wave of Republicans elected here and across the country. You now have a Republican in the White House — you're just going to see a similar trend for Democrats. To counter that, it's really two things. Level the playing field so you got an equal echo chamber, if you will, a chance to get your message out just as much as the opposition. And focus exclusively on the issues that matter to people, which is overwhelmingly affordability. You know, people want to know more than just about anything else, how am I going to pay the bills? How am I going to fill up the grocery cart? How am I going to fill up my gas? How am I going to pay for my housing, whether it's rental or mortgage? Those are the things if someone like Tom Tiffany focuses on that — and whomever he ends up running against — I think he'll do well. Steven Potter: What do you think about the chances of the Senate flipping to majority Democrats? Scott Walker: Again, it'll be a challenge. You've got, of the three key races, three to four key races, you've got a couple of incumbents that chose not to run. That always makes it incredibly more competitive. But again, good candidates — I just saw one of them today. I live here in Waukesha County, that's part of his district, and he was working, so I was impressed to see him even before I took my mother to the polls this morning, even though his election is until next November. So, a lot of hard work, knocking on doors, raising resources, and honing in on a message that connects to voters.

Transcript

Steven Potter: What are your thoughts about the loss tonight? Maria Lazar: Like I said, I think, one, it's been an honor to run this race, and two, I'm thankful to everyone who helped me, my team, everyone else, has been phenomenal and fantastic. And three, I'm just hopeful that my opponent Justice-elect Taylor, she just realizes what a fantastic opportunity she has to show the state that she can rise above and do a really good job there. And I wish that for her. I hope she does an excellent job, and I hope that everyone in this state is pleased with the decision that they've made. Steven Potter: What do you think contributed most to your loss? Maria Lazar: I really don't know. I mean, I think, maybe, we'll come up with numbers, facts and figures, but I think for right now, I think we just have to assess the fact that we don't run races for judicial positions the way we should. And I think that maybe from now on we will start doing that. And I think that you should be asking questions not about political parties, because we still have that rollover from before. And I think we need to start having races where the sole question is judicial experience and merit. Rich Kremer: That was a big, I mean, that was your hope, is... Maria Lazar: That was my hope. Rich Kremer: ...that you'd bring it back. Maria Lazar: And maybe it still happen. So, I'm not giving up on that hope at all. I'm thinking it still will happen. Rich Kremer: OK, but did the results show that people, they want the politics of it all? Maria Lazar: No, I don't think so. I think this was a race where we had incidents that happened — tornadoes, other things that happened — that just weren't leading towards a good opportunity for people in the state to get to know the candidates. And I think, maybe next race that they will ask for that. No, no, no — I think they will demand that. And when they do that, you will see a better race, better candidates and you will see a better result. Steven Potter: Would you run for the Supreme Court again? Maria Lazar: That's not in my future. No — oh, although I am supposed to always leave doors open, so, I'll just say, hmm, interesting question. Steven Potter: Thank you so much for your time. Rich Kremer: Thanks so much. Maria Lazar: No problem.

Transcript

Justice-elect Chris Taylor: People are hungry for a judiciary that prioritizes them, that protects our rights, that affords all Wisconsinites equal justice under the law. That is exactly what I will do as your next state Supreme Court justice. And last but certainly not least, thank you to the tens of thousands of grassroots supporters who were part of this campaign in communities throughout. That's you all. Yay! In communities throughout our state, armies of volunteers knocked on countless doors, made thousands of phone calls, and wrote, I don't know, probably millions of postcards, and I got one telling me to vote for me, so that was fun. And it worked. And it worked. There is nothing more powerful than when we come together, organizing and raising our voices, and I am so grateful for the grassroots support that I needed to win this race. This was a grassroots campaign about the people of the state of Wisconsin, and tonight, the people of Wisconsin spoke, and what you said is clear: We are moving forward!

Transcript

Frederica Freyberg:
We’re now just four days away from the spring election with justice for Wisconsin Supreme Court on the ballot. Liberal candidate Chris Taylor has held a commanding fundraising lead over the conservative candidate, Maria Lazar, with most of that money being poured into ads on TV and online. Now, while this election has held a lower profile than the last two Supreme Court elections, as “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz tells us, on Tuesday, this race will likely come down to the get out the vote efforts of each campaign.

Zac Schultz:
It’s a Saturday morning in March, and a crowd of volunteers is busy filling out postcards at the GOP headquarters in Appleton.

Pam Van Handel:
Address and then sign your name. Write a little something about Lazar or vote on April 7th. We really got to get out the votes.

Zac Schultz:
The cards encourage voters to support Maria Lazar in the Supreme Court election. Pam Van Handel is the chair of the Republican Party of Outagamie County. She says handwritten postcards have a personal touch and are more likely to be read than a glossy campaign flier.

Pam Van Handel:
So what we’re doing is we’re looking for people that are more likely to go out and vote in these smaller elections, because it is tough to get people out to vote. So that’s our goal here. So we get a list from the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and we tell them, give us the ones that are really going to go out and vote because we really need them.

Colin Roberts:
Don’t forget to vote on April 7th.

Zac Schultz:
On that same Saturday, Colin Roberts, a member of the Milwaukee County Dems, is knocking doors for Chris Taylor.

Man:
Yeah, I plan on voting.

Colin Roberts:
Oh, okay. Could I ask who you plan on voting for?

Man:
The Democratic candidate.

Colin Roberts:
Okay. Yeah, so yeah. Chris Taylor.

Zac Schultz:
Technically Supreme Court elections are nonpartisan and candidates use labels like conservative or liberal instead of Republican or Democrat. But in reality, the Democratic and Republican Parties of Wisconsin each donate millions of dollars and coordinate thousands of volunteers in the get out the vote effort.

Maria Lazar:
I just think going everywhere is the key and talking to people.

Chris Taylor:
Hello, ma’am, I’m Chris Taylor.

Carol Cornelius:
So nice to meet you.

Chris Taylor:
So nice to meet you.

Carol Cornelius:
I’m Carol Cornelius.

Chris Taylor:
Oh.

Carol Cornelius:
You’ll have my vote.

Chris Taylor:
Oh. Thank you.

Zac Schultz:
The liberal candidate has won four out of the last five Supreme Court elections, flipping a court that in 2019 had a 5-2 conservative majority. If Taylor wins, liberals will hold a 5-2 majority.

Chris Taylor:
How many of you are fired up to protect our democracy?

Audience:
Yes.

Chris Taylor:
All right.

Maria Lazar:
We are looking at a court that is now 4-3. When I win, it will stay 4-3. We’re not changing its composition, but the three votes are so very important.

Zac Schultz:
Republicans around the state have expressed worry the backlash to Donald Trump’s presidency and political realignment have led to this losing streak.

Maria Lazar:
I don’t know if it’s impacted morale. What I will say is this. I think that the state of Wisconsin is looking at these races and they’re asking who’s running and why people are running and for what reason. And when I look at this race, the reason I am running is because I want to be someone on that court who represents the law for the state of Wisconsin.

Zac Schultz:
Taylor wants to make sure her supporters don’t get complacent with the winning streak.

Chris Taylor:
There’s four more state Supreme Court elections coming up after mine. No one should take anything for granted. This court can change very quickly, but if I am able to get elected, there will be a pro-democracy majority on the court until at least 2030.

Zac Schultz:
In their wins, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, Janet Protasiewicz and Susan Crawford each received 55% of the vote. The one conservative victory in this streak was in 2019, when Brian Hagedorn won by less than 6,000 votes, half a percent. That was a low turnout election, with a million fewer voters than last year. Hagedorn was outspent and written off by most election observers who expected to see him lose easily. It’s no surprise Lazar hopes this election ends up following the same pattern.

Maria Lazar:
Well, secretly, yes. So the parallels are there. I think that through my entire career, people have underestimated me. It’s sort of been a theme that they don’t think someone a little shorter, a little, little softer spoken can be as strong as steel and I am. And in this race, I think that’s important too. People think that, you know, it’s written off. It’s a done deal and it’s not.

Zac Schultz:
Taylor is aware of the Hagedorn comparisons.

Chris Taylor:
I won’t rest until April 8th, the day after this election. I take nothing for granted. This is going to be a hard, competitive race. I will need every vote that I can get. I need all the help that I can get from the people of the state of Wisconsin.

Zac Schultz:
This weekend will feature the final push for get out the vote efforts.

Pam Van Handel:
I really feel like the people now are really getting involved at this level, and we’re getting more signs out. We’re getting — we’re just really getting the grassroots going on.

Zac Schultz:
With volunteers knocking on doors and reminding their supporters to vote on Tuesday.

Colin Roberts:
Do you know your polling location?

Man:
Yeah. Right there.

Colin Roberts:
The pavilion?

Man:
I can see it.

Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Appleton, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Transcript

Robert Yablon: There are several types of reforms that we might think about, and the current Chief Justice Jill Karofsky, she has indicated openness to revisiting these rules. So, the current rules that we have are in part the product of the conservative majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2010. One of the things they did was actually say in the rules that the mere fact that you have received financial support in the form of a contribution or other financial support to your campaign is not a reason to recuse. And so one change — and this has actually been proposed recently by a group of retired judges — would be to get rid of that presumption against recusal and instead require the justices who have received campaign funds to do a more in-depth analysis about whether those contributions require their recusal. There are some states that create an even brighter line rule where above a certain threshold of contribution or financial support, a justice would have to step aside. The benefit there of that kind of thing is it does create a brighter line. What are other reforms? You know, the majority of states do handle things the way Wisconsin does in terms of leaving it in the hands of the individual justice to decide whether they should recuse. But there are some states that actually assign the decision-making on recusal to someone else. And so it's possible that that could be worth considering. There are questions more generally about whether we ought to change the way that judicial elections are financed in Wisconsin. We did, in the past, have a system of public financing. Is that something that could be restored? And would that at least remove some of the questions about whether the financial backing that justices are receiving are affecting their decision-making? One challenge with that is that judicial elections have gotten so expensive that it would require a lot of public money to make it worthwhile for justices to opt in to that kind of system. So, you know, it wouldn't surprise me at all if in the coming months we get more discussion of these possible recusal reforms, and I think there's even more that folks might think about.

Transcript

Robert Yablon: The recusal standards go back a long way, and there are some types of recusal that are long established, fairly clear cut. You know, judges need to step aside from a case if they've been personally involved in the case, if they have a relative who has been, if they have a financial interest in the state, in the case. But what we're seeing more of these last few years is requests for justices to step aside because of things they said on the campaign trail and/or because of support — financial support — that they received from the campaign. Now, the recusal rules themselves are actually quite permissive when it comes to both money and campaign statements. The expectation is that, under the current rules, that judges and justices won't step aside because of their discussions of issues or values on the campaign trail or because of money they've received. And as more of that happens, right, as we have record-breaking judicial elections in terms of the money pouring in, as we have justices who are being more candid about their views and values, then more of these request to recuse come. But in reality, most of them get denied, and under the rules as they're currently written, probably ought to be denied because the recusal standards are relatively narrow standards.

Transcript

Shawn Johnson: The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is coming up, and polling shows a majority of you say you don't know enough about the candidates. Let's fix that. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. My colleagues Zac Schultz and Rich Kremer — hey, guys! Zac Schultz: Hello. Rich Kremer: Hey. Shawn Johnson: So this is not something we're just making up here. There has been polling on this race, and the leading vote getter in that poll was a majority of people saying they don't know who they're going to support. That is so different than in 2023 and 2025, when we in Wisconsin were the Super Bowls of elections for our Supreme Court races. So, Zac, what is the difference this year? Zac Schultz: Well, the simple difference is this isn't for the majority. The liberals will have a four-person majority for the next session no matter what. If Chris Taylor wins, it goes to 5 to 2. If Maria Lazar wins, it stays at 4 to 3. But that simply is the difference between $100 million in campaign spending and the attention of the world on this very important swing state, and the court's decisions on election laws versus a snooze fest — even in the state for people that normally tune in for these elections who are still trying to figure out, oh, "When is that coming up?" Shawn Johnson: And that's not hyperbole either. That $100 million is a real number from last election, when we shattered the 2023 record, not just for Wisconsin, but for national judicial races. Rich, the 2025 race was the first one you'd covered really closely. What was a day in the life like on that one, and how does it compare to what you've observed in this Supreme Court race? Rich Kremer: I mean, it's like night and day. I covered former Republican Atty. Gen. Brad Schimel, spent a day with him on the campaign trail. First off, he took money directly from the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Also, I was at a campaign event at the Republican Party in La Crosse, where Brad Schimel framed the race as a fight between good and evil. He also used an analogy of driving the serpent out of the Garden of Eden. So the language used by Schimel is very different than what we've seen from Judge Lazar. She's promoting that she is the independent candidate compared to Chris Taylor, who she attacks as being an activist and former Democratic lawmaker. But she just hasn't made the same kind of statements that I've heard Schimel did last year. Shawn Johnson: It's almost like an old-fashioned Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, Zac. Zac Schultz: It harkens back to a day where things weren't as heated, where your TV wasn't filled with ads nonstop in the lead-up to it, where you really did have to pay attention to learn who these people were. Now it's still Republican-Democrat — they may use the labels conservative and liberal — but Chris Taylor is a former legislative Democrat but now independent judge. But her connections to the Wisconsin, to the Democratic Party go deep. Lazar's connections to the Republican Party go deep. I've attended multiple events with her, where she's been speaking at GOP rallies with the next speaker is Eric Toney, running for attorney general. So it's not like either of these are running down independent lanes. They're still following that traditional — the new path. If you want to become on the Supreme Court, you keep the political parties at arm's length in your name, but you take all the money under the table, you take all their effort for grassroots, because that really matters when it comes to getting people out to vote. Those turnout operations, those dollar operations still belong to the parties. There is no independent structure for anyone to remain independent and actually win a campaign. Shawn Johnson: So let's talk about the candidates here. Let's start with Chris Taylor. She got into the race first. Zac, what should people know about Chris Taylor's background and what led her to this point? Zac Schultz: Well, the clearest thing is she had worked for abortion rights groups before she became a member of the Legislature. She ran as a Democrat in an Assembly race in the Dane County area. I covered that race way back when. She was here through a lot of the tumultuous times in the Capitol, and then she left. She was appointed Dane County judge by Gov. Evers. Then she ran for the appellate court and became a judge there, which is what she's doing today. So she has followed the judicial pattern, but she's got heavy partisan activity in her background, and she doesn't deny that. But like every judge or justice, she wouldn't be the first one. Former Justice Prosser served as the Assembly Speaker for Republicans, and back in the day when they could say, "Well, I'm a conservative justice, not a conservative politician." With Chris Taylor in this modern environment, I don't know if it really matters, because the candidates are so tied to the parties anyway that her background doesn't seem to have any baggage. And we saw with Brad Schimel, Rich, as you were talking about last year — he's a former Republican attorney general for Wisconsin, and he did not shy away from those Republican connections. But you see a difference with Lazar and how she's handled herself. Rich Kremer: So, Lazar has been focusing on her career in the courtroom. She's been a lawyer since 1989. She worked for the Department of Justice under former Republican Atty. Gen. J.B. Van Hollen, and that was in the early years of Republican control of state government. So after 2011, when a lot of laws were passed that wound up in court — Democrats tried to sue to stop the voting maps passed by Republicans, abortion restrictions and Act 10 — Maria Lazar, as an assistant DOJ attorney, was representing the state and defending those. She was elected to the Waukesha County Circuit Court, but that was, both of her races were unopposed. Then in 2022, she became a judge on the Second District Court of Appeals. But to your point, yes, she's leaning on her experience in the courtroom, but also, her political ads also kind of let you know where she stands on certain things, or at least where her campaign does. So there's plenty of signals out there. Shawn Johnson: Some of these candidates, when they run for Supreme Court, they come from the law, and maybe you're hearing about them for the first time or getting introduced to them for the first time. But Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar, as you both mentioned, have been around for a little while. I remember Maria Lazar defending Republican-drawn legislative maps in 2012 alongside co-counsel Dan Kelly, a former Supreme Court justice who ran in a couple of races and lost. I remember Chris Taylor very well for her role in the minority on the Legislature's budget committee, where if you have that position, you are expected to be able to talk and defend every position and attack the majority's position aggressively. And so she did that well. She wasn't just a backbencher legislator. She was the person who was on that front line of attack. Since she's become a judge, that's changed. She has indicated, and her friends have indicated — look, she knows this is a different role in court. But it is striking — a very big change for her to go from that attack-attack-attack Democratic legislator to a judge going to see things differently. You mentioned those ads, Rich, for Maria Lazar. She is trying to go for this kind of above-it-all judge: "I don't want to get into politics." The ads tell a different story, though. I mean, she's definitely not going that way with her campaign. Rich Kremer: Yeah, the ads have focused on basically attacking Taylor on things like abortion. Lazar's campaign ads say that Taylor wants abortion up to the moment of birth, which is a line you've heard a lot of Republicans say over the years. The latest one that I think just came out this week features a woman saying that she's afraid of her daughter having to compete against biological men in school sports. Shawn Johnson: Republican themes pulled right from congressional races and state Assembly races, governor races — hitting the points that work for them. Rich Kremer: Yeah. So the ad lays out the political part of it. And then you've got a picture of Lazar saying that she'll uphold the law. So it seems like she's still trying to walk that line, but the ads do send a signal. Zac Schultz: Well, Shawn, let me ask you. We've seen low-turnout elections in the past, and that was at a time when conservatives really won a lot of these races, when there was lower turnout, when their consistent voters from the suburbs of Milwaukee came out to vote no matter what, and the liberal candidates really struggled to get the attention that they needed to win these races. And then we saw things flip from Rebecca Dallet on in 2018. So what do you see as the impact of less attention right now on this race? Shawn Johnson: I think we'll find out what a less-attention race means here. I think, though, in the era of Donald Trump — for one, since Donald Trump realigned the Republican Party and its base of voters, a base that reliably elected conservative justices for many years up until around 2017 — we don't know what that shift is going to mean in a lower-turnout election. But we know that conservatives start out at kind of a structural disadvantage in these races. We also know that liberals have just found a pattern for what it takes to run — talk about their values. They're not afraid to talk about cases that have happened. They are not afraid to talk about women's health. It's just been a winning formula for them, really, since 2018, with one exception in 2019. That has been the liberal path to victory year, in and year out. So there have been a couple of cases, Zac, that you have asked both candidates about., where you actually got to hear them, you gave them a chance to weigh in on some very high-profile cases that came before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Let's look at those if we can. There was one about the 2020 election, which we will be talking about forever as reporters, I think. There were a lot of challenges to the election results and to Joe Biden's victory in Wisconsin that came before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. What did you ask the candidates? Zac Schultz: The case that ultimately decided that election in Wisconsin was called Trump v. Biden, and it was brought by Trump's lawyers, one of which is Jim Troupis, who is currently being prosecuted in Dane County Court for forgery related to the false electors thing, tied in around the same time period. Shawn Johnson: It's a very small world in law. Zac Schultz: Especially in political lawyers, times. But yes, that case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The question was the Trump administration, the Trump campaign wanted to throw out 200,000 votes in Wisconsin, specifically in Dane and Milwaukee counties regarding absentee ballots. The question before the Supreme Court was should they even take the case? So the question was standing in the legal sense of did Donald Trump and his campaign have a legal right to even file a lawsuit in the first place? Ultimately, it was a 4-3 decision — and this is a time when conservatives controlled the court 4-3 — that said no, we won't take the case. It was Brian Hagedorn who ultimately sided with the three liberals to throw out the case. That solidified the win. Biden won Wisconsin definitively, election conspiracies be damned. And it was the three conservatives who didn't necessarily say they would have thrown out the votes, but they said we should at least hear the case. When I asked both candidates about this, Chris Taylor was absolutely on the side of the liberal candidates, saying of course they made the right decision and they never should have thrown out those votes, should have never gotten that far. It was Maria Lazar who really didn't want to take a position on it. But she said the issue of standing is still going to come back before this court, which is true. She wouldn't even go the one step further, because I asked her point blank, like, there are people going to hear this answer and say, "Well, what about the 200,000 votes that were going to get thrown out?" She said, well, I don't want to weigh in on that, I don't want to talk about that. That was just a place she wasn't willing to go. The Democratic Party and Taylor's campaign immediately jumped all over that, saying she's still connected to election deniers and conspiracy and this whole issue. The 2020 election will not go away. It's still present, and it's present in their answers, too. Shawn Johnson: Rich, two things can be true. That is a position that a lawyer can take, that look, this has to deal with standing, we're not going to get into it. Another thing that is undeniably true is that there are people in Maria Lazar's base, or the conservative base, who have strong feelings about the 2020 election. Rich Kremer: Yeah, they absolutely do. So in 2022, she was endorsed by people — she was attacked for being endorsed by people like Michael Gableman, and also for associating with Troupis. Gableman is a former Supreme Court justice who led the 2020 election investigation that was kind of widely panned. And also he was also fired by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who had hired him before. I mean, it was a whole thing. So she's still getting hit for even associating with those two people. But yeah, the standing issue — the other thing that comes to mind is we've heard the president, President Donald Trump, say, well, all those cases, they never looked at the cases, they just found these technicalities and they tossed them out. That's not true. There were plenty of cases that were dismissed on the merits — lack of evidence, et cetera. But it just kind of reminded me of that when I heard that answer from Lazar. I've seen that same answer from a lot of people who do believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Shawn Johnson: Zac, I feel like we can't talk about a court race in Wisconsin these days without talking about the issue of abortion. That's another one where you asked the candidates about their positions. What was your question and how did they handle it? Zac Schultz: Specifically the question was how would they have decided if they had been on the court when Kaul v. Urmanski was brought before the court? To be clear, that was the case that looked to throw out the 1849 abortion ban from Wisconsin. That was the attorney general suing Sheboygan, that wasn't the point, that was what the case was called — 4-3, the liberal majority threw out that law, said it was essentially annulled by laws passed after that, specifically one by Scott Walker and the Republicans. Chris Taylor said it was absolutely the correct decision. Maria Lazar once again didn't say how she would have voted, but she kind of answered it in the end of her answer by saying, well, if I win, it'll still be a 4-3 court. So I wouldn't have changed the outcome of that case, which sounds a lot like her saying she would have decided with the conservatives on the case, which really shouldn't be all that shocking. Those are who her colleagues would be if she wins, and then another conservative wins, then she would be in the majority, and who knows? That is the question that Taylor and other people are saying. If the court flips again, will abortion rights come up before the court? I will say Lazar finished her answer by saying, however, she views that Supreme Court decision as final, and that the abortion issue is settled as far as the courts are concerned. Obviously, it's not settled when it comes to gubernatorial and legislative elections. So those will still play out, and we're going to be covering a lot of that coming up. But their answers kind of fell into the camps that you might expect them to, especially given their messaging and ads. Shawn Johnson: And Rich, there was another finding in the Marquette Poll that we recently covered — it's hard to say where people stand on the candidates when more than half of voters say they don't know. But what we did see, what you saw, there's a lot of tells in there about which side is more enthusiastic right now at this moment in time. Rich Kremer: Yeah, big time. There was a big disparity in terms of who's excited to vote in the April 7 election. Some numbers I'll run off here. People saying that they are certain to vote on April 7 — Democrats are up 18 points over Republicans. How important is the election outcome to you? That was a 19-point spread in Democrats' favor as well. So there's all kinds of metrics, and not to mention that President Trump had his lowest net negative approval rating in Marquette Poll history. So those are all some headwinds for conservative candidates. Shawn Johnson: Zac, I guess against that backdrop, what can Maria Lazar point to and say, I've got a good chance nonetheless? Zac Schultz: The quick answer is she's relying on Hagedorn's race from 2019. Like her, he was another conservative candidate who was vastly outspent and written off towards the end of the race. People thought he was not going to win, so much so that the liberal candidate at the time really took her foot off the pedal when it came to running through the finish line. Lazar directly points to that race and says that's the path to follow. That's get out the vote. That's grassroots advocacy. If we can't win on ads, we have to make sure our voters get to the polls, especially in a lower-turnout election. Taylor said she's aware of it — she's going to run through the tape, not letting off the pedal at all. Shawn Johnson: She is running a different kind of race than Judge Neubauer, who ran in that year's race ran. I mean, you mentioned taking her feet off the pedal — she ran more like a judge than a candidate, I guess, in that race. So we'll see how that plays out in the closing days. Thanks for joining us for this week's Inside Wisconsin Politics. Our colleague Anya Van Wagtendonk will be back next week. Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Transcript

Frederica Freyberg:
Elections for Wisconsin Supreme Court have become more expensive and more partisan than ever before. And while justices on the court are technically independent, they are easily sorted into liberal and conservative groups. That can create an appearance of bias in the eyes of some people and has led to an increase in the number of requests for justices to recuse themselves from a case. “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz has more.

Janet Protasiewicz:
So that’s when I say yes, those maps are rigged.

Zac Schultz:
In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz ushered in a new era in Wisconsin Supreme Court elections by openly talking about her value while on the campaign trail. She called legislative maps passed by Republicans and adopted by the Supreme Court rigged. Since then, multiple lawsuits filed against those maps have come before the court, and each time lawyers representing the Republicans have asked Protasiewicz to recuse herself, resting part of their case on this very interview she conducted with us. Each time she said no, concluding the presumption of impartiality stands. I therefore deny the motion for my recusal.

Rob Yablon:
Recusal is important in the sense that it is part of this big picture notion that people are entitled to unbiased adjudicators.

Zac Schultz:
Rob Yablon is a professor at the UW Law School. Most judicial recusals come from a judge who’s already weighed in on a case, or who has a financial or personal relationship with one of the parties, but that doesn’t include campaign contributions or statements from the campaign trail.

Rob Yablon:
The expectation is that under the current rules, that judges and justices won’t step aside because of their discussions of issues or values on the campaign trail, or because of money they’ve received.

Zac Schultz:
Under the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s own guidelines, each justice decides for themselves if they should recuse. We asked the candidates in this Supreme Court election about their recusal standards.

Maria Lazar:
I follow the rules set by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as by the state of Wisconsin. I’ve had to look at different circumstances and decide when and how to recuse. And I always look at not only is it objectively, but subjectively biased. So if there’s an appearance of impropriety, then I will take a step back.

Chris Taylor:
I’m instructed by my ethical obligations to look at each case on a case-by-case basis and make sure that I can be fair and impartial. And that’s what I do every day.

Zac Schultz:
Two current cases have shown a new tactic in recusal requests. Former Supreme Court Justice Mike Gableman and lawyer Jim Troupis have each attempted to remove enough justices through recusal to change the makeup of the court that would hear their case. In 2020, Troupis represented the Trump campaign as they attempted to throw out more than 200,000 votes in Dane and Milwaukee Counties. In oral arguments, he sparred with Justice Jill Karofsky.

Jill Karofsky:
And what you want is you want us to overturn this election so that your king can stay in power and that is so un-American.

Zac Schultz:
Troupis lost that case, but at the same time, he was the lawyer behind Wisconsin’s false elector scheme, an effort to send an alternate slate of electoral votes to Washington, D.C. on January 6th. For that, he’s been charged by the Wisconsin attorney general with forgery, and Troupis claims all the judges in Dane County are biased and should recuse. His motions were rejected, and while appealing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he asked Justices Jill Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet to recuse based on their comments in the Trump v Biden case.

Mike Gableman:
My investigation is just that. An investigation into the extent to which elections in Wisconsin have been conducted in compliance with the law.

Zac Schultz:
Meanwhile, Gableman was hired to investigate Republican claims of fraud during the 2020 election. His investigation found no fraud, but it was determined he violated the open records law repeatedly.

Mike Gableman:
And under my firm belief that this judge has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate and is acting as an advocate.

Zac Schultz:
And when in Dane County court, he insulted the judge and opposing counsel. A report by the Office of Lawyer Regulation found ten violations committed by Gableman, and he recommended he lose his law license for three years. Final action belongs to the Supreme Court, and Gableman has asked three different members to recuse themselves. Justices Protasiewicz and Karofsky said no. While Justice Crawford did recuse not because of Gableman’s request, but because she was a Dane County judge during his court case.

Rob Yablon:
My strong sense is that the volume of recusal requests that we’ve seen over the past year or two are more than we’ve ever seen before in Wisconsin, and the nature of those requests really tends to be quite political.

Zac Schultz:
Yablon says whether the recusal requests get justices to sit out the case or not, the request itself is a message to the public.

Rob Yablon:
Maybe the goal is actually to try to change the composition of the court in a way that you think will help you, but at the very least, it is an attempt maybe to raise some doubts about whether we should give credence to the legal decision that this body is issuing.

Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Madison, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Transcript

Frederica Freyberg:
While the Wisconsin Supreme Court has settled the issue of state law surrounding abortion, the medical procedure is not a constitutionally protected right in Wisconsin. So the next Legislature and governor could change the law at any time. As part of our continuing series examining the big issues in the governor’s election, Zac Schultz asked the leading candidates about the topic of abortion.
¬
Marchers:
My choice.
¬
Zac Schultz:
In the nearly four years since the Dobbs decision has returned the issue of abortion to the states, Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic Governor Tony Evers were not able to agree on any laws regarding abortion; whether that was time limits, exceptions for rape and incest, or medical definitions for when the life of the mother was in danger. We asked the leading candidates for governor if they would like to see any changes to Wisconsin’s abortion laws.
¬
Kelda Roys:
Yes, and I’ve authored many of them. I believe that abortion and frankly, all health care decisions are personal and individual. Politicians have no role in making those decisions for you. And certainly we cannot allow abortion, contraception, IVF to be criminalized or put doctors under threat when they’re simply providing care. I want to see your freedom to make your own decisions guaranteed in this state.
¬
David Crowley:
Look, I’m a huge champion when it comes down to abortion here in the state of Wisconsin. When I was a state representative in 2017, I coauthored legislation declaring abortion as health care. And as a father of three daughters, being a girl dad times three, it’s important for me to make sure that they have the same rights that their mother and grandmother had, not less. And so I’m going to always be a champion for women’s rights to choose.
¬
Tom Tiffany:
No. So I voted for the current law, which ten years ago when I was in the state Legislature, which is you can have an abortion up to five months. And I voted for that law. And as governor, I will uphold it.
¬
Joel Brennan:
Well, abortion to me is a decision that is best made between a woman and her health care provider. Abortion is health care. And so, you know, I’d like to see us to do things that get politics out of that and ensure that that women and their doctors can make those decisions, educated and informed decisions on their own.
¬
Sara Rodriguez:
What we need to do is to make sure that we enshrine Roe within Wisconsin. That’s what I’ve always been really clear about. I’m, again, a nurse by background. We know that these type of healthcare decisions are best made between a patient and their doctor, and Roe has been something that has kept women safe for decades. And we need to make sure that we have legislation to keep women safe in Wisconsin so that it does not go back and forth between — if we have different leaders –between Republicans and Democrats.
¬
Francesca Hong:
We have to repeal the 1849 abortion ban. And I think abortion freedom is, you know, about health care and democracy as well. And so I think it’s important that we keep in mind that abortion is health care, and that access to that health care has to be equitable.
¬
Mandela Barnes:
And I would love to see this country get back to a pre-Dobbs era, because Roe was the law of the land that was generally accepted by Democrats, of course, but even Republicans who didn’t necessarily like abortion – wasn’t their thing – Roe was sort of a compromise for them and something they felt comfortable with.
¬
Missy Hughes:
I would like to see it proactively protected. Women’s right to choose right now is dependent on court cases, and we need to have a law on the books that protects women’s right to choose, protects women’s rights to take care of everything that they need for their bodies and puts women first in that conversation.
¬
Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Madison, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Transcript

Frederica Freyberg:
Just last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the state’s 1849 abortion ban, the 4-3 decision by the liberal majority settled the legal question of which state statute governs abortion. But that doesn’t mean the topic won’t be a big factor in the ad campaign in this spring’s race for a seat on the Supreme Court. That race is between conservative Judge Maria Lazar and liberal Judge Chris Taylor. “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz sat down with the candidates and has the story.
¬
Zac Schultz:
In 2022, the United States Supreme Court scrambled the political world with the Dobbs decision overturning Roe versus Wade and returning the issue of abortion to the states. In Wisconsin, that meant an 1849 abortion ban went back into effect.
¬
Josh Kaul:
As we fight to protect and now restore reproductive freedom in Wisconsin.
¬
Zac Schultz:
The Democratic Attorney General, Josh Kaul, filed a lawsuit saying a more recent abortion law passed by Republicans when Roe was still in effect nullified the 1849 ban. The court agreed with the liberal majority deciding the case by one vote. This election will fill the seat of the retiring conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. So if Judge Taylor or Judge Lazar had been on that case, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. But we wanted to know if they agreed with the court’s decision.
¬
Chris Taylor:
So I agree with the decision that the 1849 law should not be implemented based on laws that had been passed since then that directly conflict with it. I think that that was the right decision by the majority on the state Supreme Court. Again, it was by one vote. This really contrasts with my opponent. My opponent would have voted to implement an 1849 abortion ban that was passed when I couldn’t vote and many people couldn’t vote. So I think it was really the right decision by our state Supreme Court. And that’s a big point of difference between myself and my opponent.
¬
Maria Lazar:
I’m not going to say how I would rule, but I will say what I will do moving forward, and I have put that in positions. I’ve released a statement. I’ve released an op ed talking about abortion and indicating that this is a really complicated issue for the woman, and her life is so valuable and important. And I’ve indicated that 1) I respect the rule as decided by the state Supreme Court. I will only be one of three members in the maj — in the minority, so I won’t be changing that. And 2) I think women in the state need clarity. They need certainty. And 3) you need to lower the temperature on this issue. This is resolved as far as I’m concerned, for courts, for the judiciary. The legislature can do what they want, and the people in the state of Wisconsin can do what they want. But the judiciary, it’s clear. It’s done.
¬
Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Madison, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”
¬

Transcript

Frederica Freyberg:
In the last few weeks, President Donald Trump has continued to dredge up conspiracy theories about his election loss to Joe Biden in 2020. Election controversies are often settled in court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election is less than a month away, pitting conservative candidate Judge Maria Lazar against liberal candidate Judge Chris Taylor. “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz interviewed the candidates about an important Supreme Court decision from the 2020 election to ask them how they would have ruled.

Protesters:
We won. Let’s go.

Zac Schultz:
In the days after Joe Biden won Wisconsin and the race for president in 2020, Donald Trump and his supporters immediately began spreading election conspiracies. Among his efforts to overturn the election, Trump’s campaign sued in Wisconsin, attempting to throw out 220,000 ballots in Dane and Milwaukee Counties, the two largest democratic areas of the state. The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court as Trump v Biden and with conservatives in control of the court, it was Justice Brian Hagedorn who sided with the three liberal justices to deny Trump’s request and refuse to take the case, saying the campaign did not have standing to sue. The three other conservatives did not say whether they would have sided with Trump and thrown out the ballots, but they would have taken the case. We asked the candidates in this election how they would have ruled if they’d been on the court.

Chris Taylor:
I would have rejected that effort. Again, that stands in contrast with my opponent. My opponent has been supported in the past in her Court of Appeals race by the same individuals that led the charge in trying to overturn our 2020 election. I think that was the right decision. That was, again, a one — only a one vote decision, which is alarming because if that case had been successful, hundreds of thousands of votes in the state of Wisconsin would have been thrown out. And that’s alarming to me.

Zac Schultz:
Judge Lazar, like the conservatives who dissented in that case, focused on whether Trump had standing to file suit.

Maria Lazar:
This is sort of an area that’s really deeply in flux with our state Supreme Court. They have issued several opinions that have gone around the edges of it, and so I’m not going to comment any further on where they would go, because I honestly believe that standing is going to come back up in our next term. So when I’m on this court, I don’t want to have someone say, “You said in an interview, so now you can’t rule in this case.”

Zac Schultz:
As far as whether someone’s going to say, “Well, you didn’t answer the question. Trump v Biden, would you have overturned all those votes?” Can you give me a reaction to that?

Maria Lazar:
I have answered the question, but with respect to overturning votes, I strongly believe that every vote should be counted. So every legal valid vote should be counted. So I wouldn’t comment, and I don’t actually know the parameters of how they were going to try to disenfranchise or not disenfranchise voters. So I really don’t have any further thing that I can say about that case.

Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Madison, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Transcript

Frederica Freyberg:
Last week, we reported on exploratory mining happening again in northern Wisconsin. The company GreenLight Metals is looking for gold and copper and other minerals in Taylor County. After the repeal in 2017 of Wisconsin’s old mining law, Wisconsin’s “Prove it first” law, otherwise known as the mining moratorium, was passed in 1997 and required mining companies to demonstrate where anyone had safely operated a metallic sulfide mine for at least ten years, and also where a mine had been safely closed for ten years. The mining company and environmental groups disagree on whether that standard could be proven if it was still in place today. In 2017, Republicans in the Legislature, led by then state Senator Tom Tiffany, eliminated those provisions. As part of our continuing series examining the biggest issues in the race for governor, “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz asked the candidates about mining.

Zac Schultz:
GreenLight Metals, the Wisconsin chapter of the Sierra Club and the Friends of the Yellow River are well aware control of the Legislature and governor’s office could flip this fall, meaning the regulations governing mining in Wisconsin could be up for debate. We asked the leading candidates for governor what they thought about mining in Wisconsin, and if they would seek to change the current regulations.

Missy Hughes:
You know, I think that we’ve seen decades of ignoring people’s rights when it comes to some of that land, whether it’s our tribal nations in the state and also ignoring the economic — I’m sorry — the environmental impact on some of our areas. Natural resources in Wisconsin are the basis of our economy. We have to protect them, while at the same time we have to use them responsibly. We have to make sure that our mining laws are in tune with current mindset around how we protect people’s rights in the land and protecting the environment with making sure that we keep using the resources in a responsible way.

Mandela Barnes:
There has to be community buy in and community input for people who have made their homes in a, in an area, you know, 20, 30 years passed down, generation to generation. I think that folks should have some input on what happens in their backyard. And all I’m saying is have the conversation. That’s the important part. When we have those times where mining may come up and in a part of the state, yeah, we’ll talk to the community. Like, let’s talk it out because the only thing that happens is more resentment if that conversation doesn’t happen.

Francesca Hong:
I am staunchly opposed to the type of mining as well as drilling when it comes to Line 5. I have been vocal about my opposition there. I think the dangers that this is presenting to communities who have already seen services be cut, their schools, you know, closing. I think that having this type of, you know, this type of harmful — these types of harmful groups coming in to impact local environments and the quality of life. It’s, it’s really unfortunate. And I think it’s very important that we look at how to hold these corporations accountable.

Sara Rodriguez:
What I think we need to do is to make sure we have a really good environmental assessment for permitting for those mines, and to make sure that we are talking with the local communities. If Tribal Nations are involved, we are having those open conversations with them and making sure that we’re not having the environmental impact that would be negative for Wisconsin.

Joel Brennan:
I think one of the most important things that we have in Wisconsin, a differentiator that we have in Wisconsin versus other places around the country, is the natural beauty, the ability that we have to go out and enjoy Wisconsin. And that’s not a partisan issue. That’s not an ideological issue. That’s a vision that we share for the state. And so as we think about anything that would do any potential harm to the state of Wisconsin, I think we need to be very cautious about that. I think there are issues around economic development that I think we need to try to find that right balance. And if it’s time to revisit that issue or it’s time to have that conversation, I’d be all for it.

Tom Tiffany:
I thought we did a good job of writing the last mining bill for two reasons. One is we made sure that we had the toughest mining law in the United States so that we are going to protect the environment. We also provided for local control. I think it’s really important for locals to be able to have input in regards to these projects. But this is something, I mean, we’ve got a long, great history. I mean, we have a miner on our flag, right? And we have a long, proud history of mining here in Wisconsin.

David Crowley:
Well, it’s about working with the local municipalities, working with the groups and stakeholders that are on the ground and making sure that the work group that we can put together are giving us the best information possible to make the best decisions. That’s going to have a huge impact — that can have a huge impact on the environment, as well as a new industry here in the state of Wisconsin. And so you have to take that on a case-by-case basis and really working with all the stakeholders to make sure that we’re making the best decision possible.

Kelda Roys:
I think the current law has worked well for us. I want to see mining companies prove first before they open up a hillside and pollute our water that they’re going to be able to extract things in a safe way that is consistent with our natural resources management and our environmental goals.

Zac Schultz:
Reporting from Madison, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Transcript

Zac Schultz: When you look at the amount of money that's coming in in support or opposition, how does that impact the recusal? And is Wisconsin's recusal law strong enough for the Supreme Court? Chris Taylor: Well, I support, as Justice Karofsky has indicated, us looking at the issue of recusal and having public hearings so the public can weigh in on the issues of recusal. So, I definitely support that. Recusal I make on a case-by-case basis. Of course, any case that I have presided over, I recuse myself from. And so I was on the circuit court — if one of my cases comes to the Court of Appeals, I recuse myself as a matter of course. Likewise, if I'm lucky enough to get on the state Supreme Court, I would recuse myself from any case that I had presided over. But besides that, I'm instructed by my ethical obligations to look at each case on a case-by-case basis and make sure that I can be fair and impartial, and that's what I do every day. Zac Schultz: There've been a lot of recusal requests over the last couple of years, for the redistricting cases, Mike Gableman's disciplinary process. Are recusal requests becoming more political in the sense of trying to send a message, or do you think there's an earnest intent behind those? Chris Taylor: I mean, they could be becoming more political. You know, most judges have had a whole legal career before they became judges, and it just would not be realistic to require people to recuse in areas of law that they practiced in or on issues they've worked on in the past. So, that's why it is a case-by-case basis, because we all come to the court with experiences and history in our legal profession. And so I think it is really important to look case by case for the judge to make sure they can be fair and impartial. Zac Schultz: Over the last five years, what would you say is one of the most important significant cases the Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued? Chris Taylor: Well, I would say the case that struck down the legislative maps was extraordinarily important. The majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court by one vote found that the legislative maps — that some election experts call the most gerrymandered in 40 years out of any state — they found those maps to be unconstitutional. That led the Legislature to pass new maps that were signed by the governor, and I think that has led to more competitive maps. So, that was an incredibly important decision. I think what that really signals to the people of the state of Wisconsin is their vote should matter. They should have the ability to protect, to vote for and to choose their elected representatives, not the other way around. And that's exactly what George Washington said at the founding of this country. Zac Schultz: I want to run through a few cases over the last few years just to get your reaction to some of them. One of the more recent ones, the congressional redistricting lawsuit, Bothfeld v. WEC, creating the three-judge panels. What do you think about the decision to accept that case for congressional districts? Chris Taylor: Well, it was filed — the case was filed in the state Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court has to abide by a law that requires when their apportionment or redistricting filed for original jurisdiction, that that be assigned to a three-judge panel. So, there's two cases now in congressional redistricting that are working their way through the judicial system. They're with two different three-judge panels. That's a pending case, which I will not comment on, but that's the process, and we have to let the judicial process play out and let the circuit courts have their trial and make their findings of fact and reach their conclusions. Zac Schultz: What about Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski? Chris Taylor: Remind me of that one again. Zac Schultz: That was overturning 1849. Chris Taylor: Oh, that was the 1849, yes. So, I can comment- Zac Schultz: And how would you have voted on that? Chris Taylor: Sure. And I can comment on that case 'cause it's been decided. If it were still pending, I would not be able to comment on it. So, I agree with the decision that the 1849 law should not be implemented, based on laws that had been passed since then that directly conflict with it. I think that that was the right decision by the majority on the state Supreme Court. Again, it was by one vote. This really contrasts with my opponent. My opponent would've voted to implement an 1849 abortion ban that was passed when I couldn't vote and many people couldn't vote. I think it was really the right decision by our state Supreme Court, and that's a big point of difference between myself and my opponent. Zac Schultz: There were a couple of cases under the Evers v. Marklein lawsuits having to do with the separation of powers between the Legislature and the administrative branch, JCRAR for rules oversight, and Knowles Stewardship and the releasing of funds. Would you have agreed with the majority in those cases? Chris Taylor: I had concerns when I was in the Legislature that there was no check on the power of the Legislature. And so there were laws being passed that, as an attorney, I really wondered, "Are these even constitutional laws?" The problem is we had a very right-wing majority on the state Supreme Court that refused to hold the Legislature accountable. That's the system my opponent wants to go back to. I as a justice will not be a rubber stamp for any branch of government. But yes, I was not surprised to see that those laws were overturned by our state Supreme Court. There were real separation of powers issues with those laws. Some of those laws really assigned the Joint Finance Committee to approve settlements that the attorney general was making. It made no sense whatsoever. So, yes, I think that those were also the right decisions. Zac Schultz: And looking at Trump v. Biden from 2020, seeking to, Trump was trying to invalidate more than 200,000 votes in Dane and Milwaukee county. How would you have voted on that? Chris Taylor: I would've rejected that effort. Again, that stands in contrast with my opponent. My opponent has been supported in the past in her Court of Appeals race by the same individuals that led the charge in trying to overturn our 2020 election. I think that was the right decision. That was, again, a one, only a one-vote decision, which is alarming, because if that case had been successful, hundreds of thousands of votes in the state of Wisconsin would've been thrown out. That's alarming to me. Zac Schultz: You obviously served in the Legislature as a Democrat. You wouldn't be the first sitting Supreme Court justice who would serve in the assembly. Justice Prosser did that. Brad Schimel was a Republican attorney general when he ran. So, have we turned a corner when it comes to a partisan background in the past for people running for the Supreme Court? Chris Taylor: I am so committed to politics not being anywhere near courts. I saw, as I mentioned, when I was in the Legislature, the grave danger of not having an independent state Supreme Court. Our courts must be independent. They cannot be rubber stamps for any political party, any group, any ideology. And I have a six-year record now of being a judge who has meticulously applied the law. I certainly try in every single case to make sure people are heard, to make sure I know exactly what the law is, and I attempt to apply it in the fairest way with total fidelity to that law. So, I think I have shown I understand I'm in a different position. Judges have to be independent. They must give everybody a fair chance to get justice in front of them. That conflicts, again, with my opponent. She has blatantly disregarded precedent — recent precedent — to achieve a political objective, and that was in a case where she ruled that releasing the private voting information of some Wisconsin voters, it was OK, so that some individual's private voting data would've been released to the public. Thankfully, her decision, which directly conflicted with a decision out of my district in the Court of Appeals, was overturned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That's not the first time her decisions have been, because she has her thumb on the scale and is applying the law in a way that achieves a particular political outcome. You can look at my cases — I've written a lot of cases, I've said a lot in the circuit court — you're not going to see that. You will never see that blatant political influence come into my decisions. I am totally committed to the constitution and to people's rights, and making sure people get a fair chance in our judiciary. Zac Schultz: We talked earlier about the fundraising needed to win this race, but what about get out the vote? What kind of ground game is necessary, and especially with the partisan ground game coming in the fall? Is this a trial run? Is there room for people who are already excited to thinking about the fall to be participating in a race this spring? Chris Taylor: In my opinion, I want everyone who cares about justice and our democracy and fairness to join my campaign for justice. This campaign is about everyone in the state who cares about having a strong court to protect them and a strong court to protect our state. So, this is a broad campaign. I am going to all corners of this state. I'm most excited about these incredible Wisconsinites that I get to meet every single day. I'm totally inspired by how people participate in government in our state. We should be so proud of that. And I think we're going to have a big turnout. I hope so, because this, my campaign, is about them, and I will be a justice for the people of this state. I really do hope that people are very inspired to turn out, because they can make a huge difference in their government. Zac Schultz: That brings up a recent Supreme Court election of Brian Hagedorn, where, similar to Maria Lazar, he was written off by some people, saying he hadn't raised enough money, he doesn't have a chance, but it was the ground game at the end that brought it over when people thought the race was already in the pocket for his opponent. Is that something that you're going to try and hammer home to your supporters? Chris Taylor: Oh, I won't rest until April 8, the day after this election. I take nothing for granted. This is going to be a hard, competitive race. I will need every vote that I can get. I need all the help that I can get from the people, the state of Wisconsin. So, I invite them all to please join me in making sure our government's about them, not the powerful special interests, not the out-of-state billionaires. My campaign is about them and the kind of court they deserve, and the kind of justice they deserve on the state Supreme Court.

Transcript

Zac Schultz: Do you expect to have the Republican Party of Wisconsin make a donation to your campaign to help along the way? Maria Lazar: You know, I anticipate they might. Any party, any group that wants to do so, they can do that. I'm not, I can't — as a judge, we don't ethically ask for money, but if groups are going to do that, I have not said I would not accept. Zac Schultz: We've seen in past elections, Justice Protasiewicz, for example, received a large amount from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. She said during that election she would recuse herself from any cases in which the Democratic Party was a plaintiff. Would you do the same? Or how would you, how do you handle fundraising and recusal process? Maria Lazar: Well, fundraising and recusals, I am very strict. I follow the rule set by the U.S. Supreme Court as well as by the state of Wisconsin. I have had to look at different circumstances and decide when and how to recuse, and I always look at not only is it objectively but subjectively biased. So, if there's an appearance of impropriety, then I will take a step back. Zac Schultz: We've seen, in some more recent examples, former Justice Gableman has asked a number of members of the bench to recuse, and some other cases, it seems like it's being thrown out as a normal course of action. So what should the public take from the Wisconsin Supreme Court's recusal rule when more and more people are asking them to sit out some of these high-profile cases and in some cases they are not, and I guess in Justice Hagedorn's case on the Act 10 case, he did? Maria Lazar: Recusal is a very interesting circumstance. It's really internally what a judge believes that they have to do to be not only fair and impartial, but to appear that way. I think maybe people are seeing it more. Recusal happens all the time. I was on the circuit court bench on the Court of Appeals — people always have those issues, and I think they'll continue on the state Supreme Court. Zac Schultz: Looking at some of the most recent cases of races over the last decade, the last one that seems to fit this parallel, and tell me if you agree, is Justice Hagedorn's race where it was a little under the radar. Towards the end of the race there were a lot of people that wrote him off as saying there's no way he can win, but it was a big ground game and he ended up winning that race when most people had written him off. Do you see a similarity there? Maria Lazar: Well, secretly yes. So, the parallels are there. I think that through my entire career people have underestimated me. It's sort of been a theme that they don't think someone a little shorter, a little softer spoken can be as strong as steel, and I am. In this race, I think that's important too. People think that, you know, it's written off, it's a done deal, and it's not. This is a race where the people in the state of Wisconsin have to take a step back and say, who do we want on this court? Do we want a legislator who is going to tell you in the state what you have to do? Or do we want a judge who has devoted her entire life to representing the law? Zac Schultz: A lot of people get focused on the fundraising numbers and the millions of dollars, but how important is get out the vote? And can this be a trial run for people that are going to be doing get out the vote activities all through the summer and into the fall? Maria Lazar: I really don't look at what's going on legislatively and what they're going to do. I will say I do look at this as the 250th anniversary of our country, and I'm really excited that this election will be happening in this year, and that when I win, in August I get to have my investiture in the 250th anniversary year. As to get out the vote, I think that everywhere I go, I talk to people — all different groups, people who are on one side or the other, in fact, even people who hate everybody, and I talk to all of those groups — and I get them to the point where they recognize why this race is important, and why I'm going to win. Zac Schultz: Most candidates for Supreme Court over the last few years have come strictly from the judiciary. There've been a couple examples of those of partisan backgrounds. Brad Schimel obviously was the attorney general. Justice David Prosser had a history in the Assembly. Your opponent has a history in the Assembly. How much should that factor in when people are looking at whether a judge may politicize something as the ruling? Maria Lazar: Well, I think it factors in a lot. I think that David Prosser was in a different generation, a different time where people did come from different avenues, and some from the legal profession or teaching instead of just being a legislator or a lawyer. But I think now we are seeing people that are so partisan, and my opponent was a legislator from Madison. My opponent was appointed by Tony Evers to the circuit court. I've never been a member of a political party. I've never been appointed to any position. I've won all of my seats by running elections, and running and winning my elections. I think it's really important when you look at that and you compare and contrast the two of us, our experience as well as where we come from. Zac Schultz: What would you say is one of the most important Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions over the last five years? Maria Lazar: So, the last five years. That's really hard to say. I guess perhaps — well, let's see. So, I know that they've made rulings on issues with respect to mental commitments. I know that those have been very important to people. I know that they just issued an opinion just about a week or two ago about privacy rights and people who have Instagram accounts and things like that. I think those are the cases that the state Supreme Court is doing that are really important, and I don't think that people in the state see them. They look at more of the political cases and the election area cases, but it's those down and important to us standards of law. There is another one about criminal burdens of proof for termination of parental rights cases. Those are the things that I think are really important. Zac Schultz: I want to run through some high-profile cases just to get your opinion on how you might have ruled if you'd been on the bench. So most recently, the congressional redistricting lawsuit, Bothfeld v. WEC, creating the three judge panels. What do you think of that decision? Maria Lazar: Well, so that's an opinion that could come up in front — I did release something on my website that talks about redistricting and that it's supposed to only happen once every 10-year cycle with the United States Census. So, in that respect, I think that my position is pretty clear. You do this once, you don't get two or three kicks. However, what they're going to do and what they're going to say, I have no position on. Zac Schultz: Another case from last year is Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski. It was a 4-3 decision to invalidate Wisconsin's 1849 abortion law. How would you have ruled on that? Maria Lazar: I'm not going to say how I would've ruled, but I will say what I will do moving forward. I have put that in positions. I've released a statement. I've released an op-ed talking about abortion, and indicating that this is a really complicated issue for the woman, and her life is so valuable and important. And I've indicated that, one, I respect the rule as decided by the state Supreme Court. I will only be one of three members in the minority, so I won't be changing that. And two, I think women in this state need clarity, they need certainty. And three, you need to lower the temperature on this issue. This is resolved, as far as I'm concerned, for courts, for the judiciary. The Legislature can do what they want and the people in the state of Wisconsin can do what they want, but the judiciary, it's clear, it's done. Zac Schultz: Another series of high-profile decisions comes from Evers v. Marklein and rebalancing some of the power between the executive and the legislative branch. The JCRAR was a 4 to 1, and 2 concurrences. It was kind of a mixed message, but what do you, and that and also the Knowles Stewardship, it was a 6-1 decision. What do you think of those decisions kind of trying to redraw the line or refigure the modern interpretation of that balance of power? Maria Lazar: That's a difficult question because I actually had some cases that went up on the same sort of issues. And I think that the separation of powers is so important, and I follow in line with the views of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and his view on what the separation of powers are and how they fall. I see this court maybe going a little astray from that view. But again, I'm going to be on the minority on this court, so while I'll be writing a dissent or not, I'm not the person who's going to change anything that's happened. I really can't comment further, because I'm sure there'll be more coming up the pipe. Zac Schultz: Another case that's going back a few years now is Trump v. Biden from the 2020 election seeking to invalidate more than 200,000 votes from Dane and Milwaukee counties. That was a 4-3 decision on whether they should take the case. Maria Lazar: On standing. Zac Schultz: On standing, and decide then go forward, not actually how they would've ruled on that — but what was your interpretation of the decision of the court at that time? Maria Lazar: Well, standing goes back all the way to the Teghan case as well, and talking about who has standing and taxpayer standing, in this case, it wouldn't have been taxpayer, but voter standing. This is sort of an area that's really deeply in flux with our state Supreme Court. They have issued several opinions that have gone around the edges of it, and so I'm not going to comment any further on where they would go, because I honestly believe that standing is going to come back up in our next term. So, when I'm on this court, I don't want to have someone say, "You said in an interview, so now you can't rule on this case." Zac Schultz: As far as whether someone's going to say, "Well, you didn't answer the question — Trump v. Biden, would you have overturned all those votes?" Can you give me a reaction to that? Maria Lazar: Well, I have answered the question, but with respect to overturning votes, I strongly believe that every vote should be counted, so every legal valid vote should be counted. So, I wouldn't comment and I don't actually know the parameters of how they were going to try to disenfranchise or not disenfranchise voters, so I really don't have any further thing that I can say about that case.